But now, officers need not be under attack to open fire. [More]So they think rules of engagement can be unilaterally changed? And they'll be the "Only Ones" so inclined?
You guys sure you really want to go there?
Forget it, Jake, it's Chi-Town.
[Via Mark G]
Funny, that's my policy too.
ReplyDeleteInevitable.
ReplyDeleteAs will be the manufactured looks of surprise, when someone gives them what they are clearly begging for. (Don't people--even evil people--normally try to hide such an obvious goad?)
Here's a nostalgic thought: anyone remember the days when it was freelance criminals that were the bigger worry?
This seems to be the same motif as the classic bumpersticker: "Don't steal. The government hates competition." They're hard at work building the idealized criminal.
Of course Chicago doesn't want its citizens to own guns. It would require courage to abuse them. As it is now they can be shot or beaten or anything else without consequence for anybody.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, it ain't just the cops getting a free pass to prey on the citizenry, but the other criminal gangs too. How come we never see stories about shoot-outs between the other gangs and the cops? They each know where to find the other.
Oh, that's right, it's safer to fuck over the average mope who isn't allowed to be armed. And as there are plenty of them, the cops and the other criminal gangs at this time can just divide territories without bumping heads. That shit could be dangerous!
Why mess up a perfect symbiotic relationship when everything is rocking right along with all sides doing well. Well, of course the citizen is an exception, but fuck him, "what's he gonna do? He can't shoot back."
Shoot while trying to escape.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's the next logical step of the gestapo state.
Look for a policy change coming to a district near you.
Great, now me and my 1932 Hupmobile might get perforated before I even have a chance to assert my pesky "constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure."
ReplyDeleteThis policy seems directly counter to Tennessee v. Garner:
ReplyDelete"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape." -- Justice White
"suspected of committing a felony" now authorizes your execution at the the whim of a blue costume.
ReplyDeleteZimbabwe?
Ditto my standard sarcastic remarks....
ReplyDeleteIts hardly worth the effort anymore.
For what it's worth:
ReplyDeletePolice Pull Back On New Deadly Force Policy
"But later in the day, it turned out that the change was not cleared with City Hall, and thus may not be instituted."